Rudd Assylum Seeker Policy

[Professor Polonsky]

The point which I was trying to make is that positive rights legislation has generally been recognised to allow for exceptions, which is why the ICCPR might not be necessarily controlling when considering treatment of individuals. I think I made this point in a slightly better fashion in a later post.

Yeah, sorry, that was inappropriate, and was mostly a result of built-up frustration. I still regard the former argument as invalid by itself (just because the law says something it doesn't mean it's correct), and while the latter is valid, it's not absolute. My viewpoint (which I pretty unsuccessfully tried arguing) is that there are others considerations beyond the harm caused to the asylum seekers. Part of that counter-argument, which was almost completely ignored, was the underlying philosophy behind why and in which cases asylum should be granted. I sometimes feel like this is completely ignored in discussions about refugee policy, and the continuance of that in this discussion (despite my several attempts - as good or bad as they may have been) was what led to my frustration and the "ermagherd" comments.

I think legal and ethical issues have been mixed up too much in this discussion.

[Russ]

Sure. I will be the token Randian to be sneered at if that's what's needed to get a straight answer instead of smart-ass remarks out of you.

Why is "zero obligation" a bad thing?

The fact that Randian philosophy (as poorly thought out and communicated as it is) has such a following means that quite a few people also feel the same "zero obligation" or "lack of humanity" or greed or selfishness or any name you wish to give it. Yet the criticisms I've seen for it are only ever snark remarks such as the commentary you provided, or choruses of people trying to out-do each other in Rand-bashing without mentioning any Randian ideologies.

Surely the cause for this debate boils down to the devide between the Randian ideology and the more utilitarian ideology (or however you choose to classify it). So, a proper critique please. Why is "zero obligation" a bad thing?

There are plenty of detailed critiques of the ideology from a philosophical perspective. I find it hard to believe that you've never actually seen them, assuming you've bothered to go looking. Heck, Wikipedia has a bunch of articles that are a starting point.

As for snark...well...I think it's entirely appropriate for what Rand posits.